The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to GEICO#Advertising campaigns with the option of merging content that has clear encyclopedic value, and the option of subsequently writing a spinnoff article based on reliable secondary sources. The argument that this topic has SIGCOV hasn't really been challenged; but conversely, the argument that the current content is cruft and non-encyclopedic hasn't been refuted either. As such this AfD isn't a judgement on the topic's notability, but redirecting and starting over seems to have enough support. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:03, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GEICO advertising campaigns[edit]

GEICO advertising campaigns (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

More than a decade after the previous nomination, this article has grown to catalog wmore advertising campaigns but hasn't expanded on any references that might demonstrate the notability of the advertisements themselves. The first couple of paragraphs discuss the company's advertising approaches and its effects and probably could be kept after merging into the company's main article. The balance of the article contains only primary sources; where we'd expect a notable list to contain references crituiing the ad, analysing their content and production, or researching their quantitiative results. WP:NOTCATALOG (and WP:LINKFARM too) and fails WP:GNG. Not enough significant coverage. Mikeblas (talk) 17:59, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:22, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Any large, successful company will go through a series of ad campaigns. I'm not seeing any sources for Geico's as a group, so it fails WP:NLIST. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:24, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The advertisements were/are notable and the content (as entertainment) has become part of the cultural landscape - this article is as notable when compared to video games, maga, tv shows, and movies. The issues outlined in the AFD nominations are valid and the action taken (rather than an AFD) could be to address those issues or tags. Perhaps the article can be addressed via the talk page. The older AFD discussion provides support for keep; and talks to notability, reach, and impact. Flibbertigibbets (talk) 21:20, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Indeed, a similar argument was made in the previous AfD. It assumed, like you od, that "part of the cultural landscape" conveyed notability and met WP:GNG. It doesn't. WP:OTHERSTUFF doesn't support a Keep vote. -- Mikeblas (talk) 02:13, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep but essentially rewrite per WP:TNT. Plenty of secondary sources and analysis of GEICO advertising found in a preliminary search in Wikipedia Library, including academic sources. Focus on the major issues, impact, and controversies first; lose all the meticulous detail about every single specific ad campaign ever conducted. For the TNT, maybe we just delete all the passages that lack citations completely and go from there. Cielquiparle (talk) 05:57, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep with the caveats noted above. this article is a train wreck driven by Neanderthals with with due respect for my ancestors. I'll try to work on trimming it down. Bearian (talk) 15:05, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Done for now. Bearian (talk) 19:33, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, please review the article after it was severely pruned by Bearian.

Also, previous AFD can be found at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GEICO ad campaigns.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:02, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect. You hate to see it: someone (probably many someones) put a great deal into this article, a true labor of love. A full description of every bit done in every commercial for a car insurance company in the last, what, twenty years? My favorite is this: An orchestra is performing Bach's Brandenburg Concerto No. 3 in G major, when the trianglist begins stealing the spotlight. (Side note: None of the Brandenburg Concertos call for a triangle.) It is beautiful, as a post. Unfortunately, as a Wikipedia article, it is terrible. What are these referenced to, besides the commercials? That is to say, how have we established it as a fact that anyone cared about this particular car insurance commercial? Not to mention the larger issue here, which is that this article is literally just a commercial for a gigantic corporation, which in a sane world would be WP:CSD material. Consider this: if Honest Bob's Car Insurance got turned blue by some gigantic hagiography about the greatest car insurance company in Kalamazoo, we would delete it in a heartbeat. For some reason, though, if the company has billions of dollars to blow, we will write a fawning catalog of every stupid radio commercial they ever ran, with commentary about how smart it was, and then argue to keep it at AfD??? jp×g 01:32, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. There is something to write about here, but the article is a mess that asks for WP:TNT. It probably can be salvaged, but someone needs to trim this down to a stub or few paragraphs. WP:OR is an issue, as is MOS:TRIVIA. WP:GNG is borderline. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 17:58, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 17:59, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Update. Thanks largely to Bearian, the article has been reduced from ~83k in size to ~48k. I've removed large swathes of unsourced copy as well, but to be quite honest, someone more ruthless could probably cut it down even more. (Yes, it's shocking that the article was that huge of a mess when it was nominated.) Will have a look again later. Cielquiparle (talk) 21:15, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, even with these removals, the article's major content is still a list of descriptiosn of the advertisemsents. The links given are almost all dead, so the videos aren't viewable. This doesn't go to notability, and just reinforces the nomination. -- Mikeblas (talk) 17:23, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fair. Got it down to 35k. I'm sure it could be reduced some more. Cielquiparle (talk) 18:40, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Keep as above comments. AllwellMan (talk) 08:56, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect/Merge to GEICO#Advertising campaigns - The vast bulk of this article is still just descriptions of a bunch of the ads, sourced mostly to youtube videos of them, with no actual sources to specify why they are particularly notable or noteworthy examples. The actual sourced paragraphs describing their development and popularity, as well as descriptions of the more notable examples like the Geico cavemen could easily fit into the proper section of the main article without needing to be split out into a separate article. Rorshacma (talk) 18:10, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:16, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Definitely DO NOT Delete possible merge to GEICO#Advertising campaigns GRALISTAIR (talk) 16:14, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Notable element of this company; distinguishable from other large companies most of which would not merit a separate article.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 21:37, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge Merge the relevant notable commercials and content to GEICO#Advertising campaigns. There are notable elements, but I think it is better suited and more appropriate for the main GEICO article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KeepItGoingForward (talk • contribs) 01:37, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to company article per above. It's possible that we could support a summary style split-out list of noteworthy GEICO campaigns but we would need WP:TNT, an independent effort, and a slew of reliable, secondary sources to do so. As scoped right now, this is and will continue to be a cruft magnet for primary sources. It would need to be scoped to generalities about the general campaigns rather than a catalog of commercials with YouTube links for each. czar 18:41, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.